 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Harris v. City of Dearborn8/9/2002
onable repair, and that the defendant should have erected barriers or warning signs. Id. at 324. Initially, this Court reversed the trial court's grant of summary disposition with respect to the claim that the defendant breached its statutory duty. This Court relied on Pick, supra, and concluded that a municipality had the duty to erect barriers or warning signs at points of hazard affecting a sidewalk. Our Supreme Court remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Nawrocki, supra. On remand, this Court affirmed the grant of summary disposition in favor of the defendant, holding that in light of Nawrocki, supra, the defendant did not have a duty to erect a barrier or a warning device around that portion of the sidewalk that was under repair. Weakley, supra at 328. The duty to repair and maintain a highway does not include a separate duty to keep the highway reasonably safe. Id. at 327.
Nawrocki, supra, and the remand decision in Weakley, supra, stand for the proposition that the concept of a point of hazard or special danger is no longer viable in the consideration of the liability of any governmental agency under the highway exception, including a municipality. Even assuming arguendo, as does plaintiff, that the point of hazard or special danger concept remains viable as to a municipality, the trial court's decision must be affirmed. The evidence showed that the limb that struck plaintiff's truck simply hung over the road. It was not severed and hanging precariously over the road, as was the limb at issue in McKeen v Tisch (On Remand), 223 Mich App 721; 567 NW2d 487 (1997), on which plaintiff relies.
In contrast to the facts of McKeen, supra, no evidence showed that defendant had any knowledge of the position of the limb. Further, no evidence established that defendant failed to maintain the highway in reasonable repair so that it was reasonably safe for public travel. MCL 691.1402(1). Defendant had no separate duty to take steps, such as removing the limb or erecting warning signs, to make the highway safer. Weakley, supra at 327.
Affirmed.
Michael J. Talbot
Jessica R. Cooper
Daniel P. Ryan
Page 1 2 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|